Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

The feasibility of collectives' actions

  • Holly Lawford-Smith*
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Does ought imply can for collectives' obligations? In this paper I want to establish two things. The first, what a collective obligation means for members of the collective. The second, how collective ability can be ascertained. I argue that there are four general kinds of obligation, which devolve from collectives to members in different ways, and I give an account of the distribution of obligation from collectives to members for each of these kinds. One implication of understanding collective obligation and ability in the proposed way is that a group can be blameworthy for failing to realize its obligation even when no member of the group is blameworthy for failing to realize her obligation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)453-467
Number of pages15
JournalAustralasian Journal of Philosophy
Volume90
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The feasibility of collectives' actions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this